For the posters who indicated that Jerry (San Antonio) and Seattle (Portland) wouldn't sign off on the deal...that's true...but they don't need to for it still to happen. Only 24 of 32 teams need to approve it.

But, it wouldn't pass muster anyway. In the end, either the Raiders or Chargers (or both) will go back to LA.

Yeah but the Seahawks owner also owns the trailblazers in portland. It would be illegal by nfl rules for him to own both if an nfl team went to portland.

So I don't think the NFL would do that to him.

Huh? That's virtually irrelevant, because a NFL team has little to no impact on the Blazers. Kroenke owns the Rams and the Nuggets, and I don't see the Broncos suffering (Portland and Denver are similar TV markets). The NFL doesn't care about the impact on an NBA team, they care about the NFL.

Either way, it wouldn't matter, because there's a better chance that the Raiders move to Anchorage than Portland.

Technically his son owns the Nuggets but I agree Portland is a long shot to land a team.

Strictly leverage. Why isn't Los Angeles being used? Raiders are covering their bases with State Funding. Obviously Oakland VS Los Angeles will not have a difference but Texas will and that opens up negotiations on that front.

As for all the haters out there saying Los Angeles doesn't deserve a team. The Raiders and rams didn't leave due to lack of fan support; they left because they were playing in multi use dumps. Los Angeles has made no effort to contribute funding to an NFL stadium. This hasn't changed despite what the PR folks for "Farmers Field" will say. Snake oil salemen who said construction on an NFL stadium would start LAST YEAR even without a team prepared to occupy the stadium.

Los Angeles is a pipe dream unless a Los Angeles business group finances the whole stadium because they are fans. It'd take a Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban type of owner to get a team in Los Angeles.

Which is do-able, however the issue is that any such investor or investment group isn't going to just do this out of the goodness of their heart; they're going to want a stake (and a pretty good-sized one) of whatever team plays in that stadium they're funding. They'll want a piece of that NFL pie if they're going to put up that kind of scratch, and you're not likely to find many NFL owners all that keen on selling a large share of their stake.

Where both California teams are/have been hosed in comparison to other teams that have gotten new stadiums of late: Minnesota, NY/NJ, Arizona, Atlanta (in process at least); is that the option of state funding is non-existent. California and its population is too divided (as is we've had - all-be-they unsuccessful which they'll continue to be - movements in CA for the past 40 years to divide the state up into as many a 6 different new states); northern Californian aren't going to vote to pay tax and foot a statewide bond to fund a stadium that, almost entirely, only Southern Californians will make use of... and vice versa. That's why there was never any movement on upgrading the Coliseum in LA, because it's state-owned.

Honestly, the only way around this I can see would be for some current NFL ownership to partner with the city of LA (which could push a bond through, but voters aren't going to ratify it without something more concrete than "if we build it, they will come") and probably a conglomerate of USC alumni to build a new stadium that would be shared by an NFL team and the Trojans.

That last paragraph would be near impossible. I could never see all three parties working together.

The main reason football hasn't returned to Los Angeles is due to AEG's ridiculous demands. They simply wanted too much to build the stadium, and they refused to back down (they wanted percentage of the team, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head).

In order to get Farmers built, one of these things would have to happen
-AEG would have to buy an NFL team. If the Chargers or Raiders were to come up for sale for any reason, AEG does have the capital to buy them out. I don't really know how this would work with them also owning the Kings and a share in the Lakers, however. I also don't know if I want AEG running a team.

-AEG would have to lower their demands. This also seems unlikely.

There have also been rumors of a league owned stadium somewhere and then of course, there's the property Kroenke owns in Inglewood. These seem like a better bet than Farmers, unless AEG gets their stuff together (or someone makes them get their stuff together)._________________

Foster a Falcon '14: Julio Jones

l3lind golfer wrote:

Sam Bradford is about as good as Matt Ryan, so when the Falcons get a good QB we can call each other.

Strictly leverage. Why isn't Los Angeles being used? Raiders are covering their bases with State Funding. Obviously Oakland VS Los Angeles will not have a difference but Texas will and that opens up negotiations on that front.

As for all the haters out there saying Los Angeles doesn't deserve a team. The Raiders and rams didn't leave due to lack of fan support; they left because they were playing in multi use dumps. Los Angeles has made no effort to contribute funding to an NFL stadium. This hasn't changed despite what the PR folks for "Farmers Field" will say. Snake oil salemen who said construction on an NFL stadium would start LAST YEAR even without a team prepared to occupy the stadium.

Los Angeles is a pipe dream unless a Los Angeles business group finances the whole stadium because they are fans. It'd take a Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban type of owner to get a team in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles makes a lot of sense. It'd be awesome to play at Farmers Field and the city needs to build a new stadium if the United States wants a chance to host the 2022 World Cup anyways. Plus the city is making a bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics and I'm sure that a state of the arc outdoor facility such as Farmers Field wouldn't hurt their chances.

I honestly wouldn't mind if we shared the stadium with the Rams. It'd still be awesome to have a brand new stadium in Los Angeles._________________Duke '14-15 tracker: 14-0 (2-0 ACC); #2 AP, #2 Coaches Poll

Strictly leverage. Why isn't Los Angeles being used? Raiders are covering their bases with State Funding. Obviously Oakland VS Los Angeles will not have a difference but Texas will and that opens up negotiations on that front.

As for all the haters out there saying Los Angeles doesn't deserve a team. The Raiders and rams didn't leave due to lack of fan support; they left because they were playing in multi use dumps. Los Angeles has made no effort to contribute funding to an NFL stadium. This hasn't changed despite what the PR folks for "Farmers Field" will say. Snake oil salemen who said construction on an NFL stadium would start LAST YEAR even without a team prepared to occupy the stadium.

Los Angeles is a pipe dream unless a Los Angeles business group finances the whole stadium because they are fans. It'd take a Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban type of owner to get a team in Los Angeles.

Al Davis would've been crazy enough to do it.

Al Davis didn't have the money to build his own stadium so the fact that he was risk tolerant enough to do so is irrelevant.

The LBCJoined: 12 Jan 2008Posts: 33701Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:21 pm Post subject:

BeeperKing wrote:

The LBC wrote:

Boltstrikes wrote:

Strictly leverage. Why isn't Los Angeles being used? Raiders are covering their bases with State Funding. Obviously Oakland VS Los Angeles will not have a difference but Texas will and that opens up negotiations on that front.

As for all the haters out there saying Los Angeles doesn't deserve a team. The Raiders and rams didn't leave due to lack of fan support; they left because they were playing in multi use dumps. Los Angeles has made no effort to contribute funding to an NFL stadium. This hasn't changed despite what the PR folks for "Farmers Field" will say. Snake oil salemen who said construction on an NFL stadium would start LAST YEAR even without a team prepared to occupy the stadium.

Los Angeles is a pipe dream unless a Los Angeles business group finances the whole stadium because they are fans. It'd take a Jerry Jones or Mark Cuban type of owner to get a team in Los Angeles.

Which is do-able, however the issue is that any such investor or investment group isn't going to just do this out of the goodness of their heart; they're going to want a stake (and a pretty good-sized one) of whatever team plays in that stadium they're funding. They'll want a piece of that NFL pie if they're going to put up that kind of scratch, and you're not likely to find many NFL owners all that keen on selling a large share of their stake.

Where both California teams are/have been hosed in comparison to other teams that have gotten new stadiums of late: Minnesota, NY/NJ, Arizona, Atlanta (in process at least); is that the option of state funding is non-existent. California and its population is too divided (as is we've had - all-be-they unsuccessful which they'll continue to be - movements in CA for the past 40 years to divide the state up into as many a 6 different new states); northern Californian aren't going to vote to pay tax and foot a statewide bond to fund a stadium that, almost entirely, only Southern Californians will make use of... and vice versa. That's why there was never any movement on upgrading the Coliseum in LA, because it's state-owned.

Honestly, the only way around this I can see would be for some current NFL ownership to partner with the city of LA (which could push a bond through, but voters aren't going to ratify it without something more concrete than "if we build it, they will come") and probably a conglomerate of USC alumni to build a new stadium that would be shared by an NFL team and the Trojans.

That last paragraph would be near impossible. I could never see all three parties working together.

The main reason football hasn't returned to Los Angeles is due to AEG's ridiculous demands. They simply wanted too much to build the stadium, and they refused to back down (they wanted percentage of the team, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head).

In order to get Farmers built, one of these things would have to happen
-AEG would have to buy an NFL team. If the Chargers or Raiders were to come up for sale for any reason, AEG does have the capital to buy them out. I don't really know how this would work with them also owning the Kings and a share in the Lakers, however. I also don't know if I want AEG running a team.

-AEG would have to lower their demands. This also seems unlikely.

There have also been rumors of a league owned stadium somewhere and then of course, there's the property Kroenke owns in Inglewood. These seem like a better bet than Farmers, unless AEG gets their stuff together (or someone makes them get their stuff together).

I don't see AEG wanting a piece of a team (and not some chincy 5% minority stake) as being ridiculous. Honestly, I see many of these owners wanting a state of the art stadium build for them without having to kick in much from their own bank account (like Jerry did) to be pretty ridiculous.

I don't think AEG is the solution in LA period - this new consortium that's trying (barring Sterling being a complete tool) to buy the Clippers is a more viable option as is the Gugenheim Group that owns the Dodgers. Developers aren't difficult to come by. The downtown location is quite frankly never going to work - especially since the City has already moved forward with renovations on the Convention Center which was to be moved in order to facilitate the space for Farmers Field. More likely any stadium is going to be in LA County but likely not LA proper (it's purely speculation but I've pitched Long Beach as a definitely viable option given that Boeing campuses that already have lots, some parking -more would be needed, but is doable, and is freeway/airport/hotel accessible); Industry probably won't work just because the surrounding neighborhoods will fight it tooth and nail, but locations are doable (including the possibility of building on the site of current Angels Stadium if/when they relocate to a new stadium in Irvine.

Unless it's the league though, I just don't see a developer group being willing to build a stadium simply to lease it to an NFL team and then try to work additional uses (possibly as a concert/event venue) out of it that don't conflict with the NFL team's schedule. It's one thing if they're getting a decent chunk of 1/32 share of the NFL revenue; that's not what's happening in this referred scenario though. If that developer can also get USC to lease the stadium for use for Trojan football games, then maybe it's more worth the investment - and if this is the case it's likely an SC Alum that spearheads the effort if something like that were to happen. But I think the days of Edward Jones Dome's being built off of wholly public funds are not viable in the modern domestic economy - at least not for the purposes of relocating a team (a community desperate to keep their team is a different story, but even then a lot of those community's have benefited of late from getting state funding which won't be an option with LA)._________________

A 3rd team in Texas? Is the market in SA really that much better than Oakland? I honestly have no idea.

I think the stadium is more the issue.

I'm surprised they're talking about San Antonio before LA gets done.

why, they've tried the LA Raiders before..

Hadnt Cleveland already tried the Browns before 1999?

yeah, were there for a long time too- pretty successful as well

LA is a bargaining chip that once goes away, no other team who wants a new stadium can say "HEY WERE MOVING TO LA". i'd doubt if we get one there soon.

So they couldnt use "Hey, lets move to San Antonio." Like the Raiders are doing right now?

And to be clear, there was this whole other football team in LA for, if my memory serves, 49 years. Which is... what? 1 year longer than the Browns were in Cleveland?

we aren't talking about another football team in LA. not to mention, the browns were in Cleveland for 53 years, so that's wrong.

and no, i dont think anyone is going to say "hey we're moving to san antonio", unless they were actually wanting to move to san antonio for a specific reason.

Dont be disingenuous. We both know what you were getting at with the comment. The name of the team making its way to LA is utterly irrelevant. The name of the team isnt what led to their departure. We arent talking about putting a team named THE RAIDERS in a market where fans hate teams named THE RAIDERS. There is no reason to think a return wouldnt work. Nor is there any reason to think the Raiders shouldnt make a return vs any other NFL team possibly moving to LA. But in case you werent suggesting what we both know you were, again, the Cleveland had done the Browns before. So why try it again? Because the market was there for a return?

Now, how is LA not having a football team going to help the Raiders get a stadium deal in Oakland when theyre threatening to go to San Antonio? And if theyre indeed serious, how is LA not having a team doing what you suggest? Teams are still moving. The fact is, any city that can support an NFL franchise and is ready to build can be used at your proverbial bargaining chip. Any city. Keeping a team out of LA isnt keeping the Raiders from moving, right? And if they stay and get a deal done in Oakland, it was San Antonio that was the bargaining chip, not LA. Right?

I have the Browns in Cleveland from 1946 to 1995. Am I missing some seasons?

No, I was actually saying the Oakland raiders have been in LA before, why try again?

And again, the Browns had been in Cleveland before. Why try that again???

Do you think there is something specific to the Raiders that predisposes them to failing in LA a second time? Do you think a different team would stand a better chance for some reason?_________________
7DnBrnc53-"Brady is the perfect QB for Belichick: Someone who isn't very talented, but is a good leader and can play well in the structure of his offense."

For the posters who indicated that Jerry (San Antonio) and Seattle (Portland) wouldn't sign off on the deal...that's true...but they don't need to for it still to happen. Only 24 of 32 teams need to approve it.

But, it wouldn't pass muster anyway. In the end, either the Raiders or Chargers (or both) will go back to LA.

Yeah but the Seahawks owner also owns the trailblazers in portland. It would be illegal by nfl rules for him to own both if an nfl team went to portland.

So I don't think the NFL would do that to him.

Huh? That's virtually irrelevant, because a NFL team has little to no impact on the Blazers. Kroenke owns the Rams and the Nuggets, and I don't see the Broncos suffering (Portland and Denver are similar TV markets). The NFL doesn't care about the impact on an NBA team, they care about the NFL.

Either way, it wouldn't matter, because there's a better chance that the Raiders move to Anchorage than Portland.

Actually Kroenke had to put the Nuggets, Avs, and Rapids under his son's name/ownership (under the auspices of Kroenke Sports) in order for the purchase of the Rams to go through.

Yup. And it has nothing to do with TV markets. Not really sure what that argument is even about. The NFL doesn't want a conflict of interest to arise. The Portland Raiders want a new stadium? Guess who also wants a new arena in Portland and knows that if the money goes to the Raiders, he's going to have to wait._________________